K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J. - (1.)THE petitioners were aggrieved with the notices issued similar to Ext.P2 as seen from W.P.(C) No.11151 of 2016. The petitioners contend that they were paying nominal licence fees, which stood enhanced to almost four times as is seen from Ext.P2; on an unilateral revision made on account of the Panchayath being constituted as a Municipality.
(2.)THE contention of the petitioners was that the petitioners had been continuing for long in the shopping complex, when the Municipality was earlier a Panchayath. The petitioners were also grant continued lease in the successive and connected cases years on nominal annual enhanced licence fees of 5%. The petitioners have now been threatened with an arbitrary enhancement as is indicated at Ext.P2 and other similar orders, which allegedly is under Sec. 4(5) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (for brevity 'the Act of 1994). The petitioners contend that no such power can be derived by the Municipality from Sec. 4(5) of the Act of 1994.
(3.)THE learned Counsel for the petitioners would point out that Sec.
Of the Act Of 1994 contemplates a situation when the Village Panchayath area is constituted as a Municipality. From that point the newly constituted Municipality would be entitled to levy all tax fees or other charges levied in that area as leviable under the provisions Of the Act Of 1994 and rules, regulations and bye -laws made thereunder. The specific power for making such levies is available under Art. 243X Of the Constitution Of India; which has been statutorily permitted. The licence fees payable by the petitioners would not be a levy and connected cases as contemplated under Art. 243X and section 4Of the Act Of 1994, is the compelling argument. Further, the learned Counsel would also refer to Sec. 215 Of the Act Of 1994 to concede that if a proceeding under Sec. 215 Of the Act Of 1994 should be initiated, then the petitioners' lessees would be entitled to make a negotiation with the Municipality and the vice Of arbitrariness which visits an unilateral decision would be avoided. 4. The learned Counsel for the respondent Municipality takes me through the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No. 11954 Of 2016 to contend that the licence fees for identically situated rooms were decided by a Committee Of the Municipality as is indicated at Ext.R2(b). Ext.R2(b) is the list prepared by the Committee showing the licence fees applicable to each Of the petitioners for the previous and present year i.e. 2015 -16 and 2016 -17. The contention Of the Municipality based on Ext.R2(b) is that the intention Of the Municipality was to and connected cases ensure that the levy Of licence fees be made uniform based on the extent occupied by the licensees and also considering the location. This measure was adopted also with the additional intention Of more income to the Municipality. The recommendation so made had the approval Of the Council too.